"Patriots are not revolutionaries trying to overthrow the government of the United States.
Patriots are Counter-Revolutionaries trying to prevent the government from overthrowing the Constitution."
The Coach’s Team (TCT) offers the best in conservative essays along with articles taken from various internet sites. The victory of Donald Trump has provided a God-sent opportunity to reverse the years of willful damage done our nation by Barack Hussein Obama.
Thursday, April 26, 2018
Science, Consensus and Polar Bears
The following article
appeared in Powerline on April 25th
By John Hinderaker
Polar bears have
become an icon of the global warming movement. The theory is that global
warming reduces the volume of Arctic sea ice, which in turn impacts polar bear
habitat. Notwithstanding the fact that polar bears have survived through
multiple ice ages and warm periods, and in recent years polar bear populations
have grown rather than shrinking, the Left finds it convenient to use them for
Polar Bear Science is a
web site run by Susan Crockford, one of the world’s leading experts on polar
bears, with over 35 years of experience and many scientific publications.
Recently, she was viciously attacked in the New York Times (where else) by
leftists who were outraged that she pointed out the fact, based on published
data, that climate alarmists’ predictions about polar bear populations have not
Dr. Mitch Taylor was
a member of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) as a polar bear
scientist representing Canada for 28 years (1981-2008) but in 2009 he was
booted out by chairman Andrew Derocher for his skeptical views on human-caused
global warming. The group then changed their rules on membership to justify
Dr. Taylor writes:
It has become a lot
more difficult to talk about polar bears since they became an icon for climate
change as a cause.
The new model [Regehr
et al. 2016] guarantees that polar bears will decline by decoupling the model’s
population projections from climate model forecasts of sea ice conditions….
de-coupling I meant that Regehr’s model [Regehr et al. 2016] has no input from
the GCMs [General Circulation Models] for sea ice dynamics. If you suddenly
reduced CO2 levels somehow, the GCMs would respond by predicting an increase in
sea ice. Regehr’s model uses a simple regression fit to sea ice decline as
measured since the satellite record began in 1979. As you know, sea ice
declined faster than the GCMs predicted. So the PBSG has have given up on the climate models and now they just use
the historical slope to project continued sea ice decline forward. In other
words, their current argument for up-listing polar bears due to anthropogenic
global warming is now entirely independent of atmospheric CO2 levels. It
seems the PBSG agrees that climate models are not predictive with respect to
sea ice which was their central argument for up-listing them in the first
As practiced by the
alarmists, climate “science” has no integrity.
There are two ways to
get a scientific consensus. One is to present the data and the analysis in a
manner that is so persuasive that everyone is convinced. The other way is to
exclude or marginalize anyone who does not agree. This occurs so commonly now
that it has become an accepted practice. The practice of science has become
secondary to governments, NGOs, journals, and scientists who feel that the ends
justify the means.
The response to
Susan’s work is politically motivated, not an argument against her conclusions.
The journal’s response to this article and to her complaint was also political.
Sadly, BioScience is not a credible scientific journal anymore. We have fake
news and fake science.
Fake science is a
good description for pretty much all global warming alarmism.